I think it's a very valid question. Good art is good art, no matter what the reason for the artist's talent. However, any time there is any outlier, extreme ability, or extreme disability in any area, it's natural for the scientifically curious to wonder what caused the difference.

For those of us on the autistic spectrum, that scientific curiousity can also meld with the desire to understand our own situation. Why were we made the way we were? What if there's a flip side to our disabilities? What's the upside? Neurodiversity is a controversial topic — some might argue that it's merely another "PC" trend, but I think at its root is a very common, understandable need. To be accepted.

I have touched on subject of neurodiversity before in this blog, in my post Neurological Disorder or Natural Diversity?. Based on what I wrote there, you might believe that I am squarely on the neurodiversity side...but as with everything, I think it's more complicated than that.

I do sympathize with the idea of neurodiversity. Not only for my own personal reasons, but for the simply scientific question: If the genes for autism/Asperger's are wholly negative, why do they remain in the gene pool?

On the other hand, even if one argues that human ability is a continuum, and that autism and Asperger's are at the far end of that continuum, it's still the far end. It's still an outlier. Whether you want to classify them as "disorders" or not, the reality is they are not common ("normal"), and therefore are "abnormal".

What is important about neurodiversity is the spotlight it places on the need for tolerance. We don't fit the mainstream mold, but we have real value to add to the world. We may not be what the world would call "normal," but that in itself can be an advantage. Unfortunately, this advantage is lost when people are blinded to this by focusing on what they judge we "should be" versus what we are.

Difference is not taken well in mainstream society, which is why bullying is such a problem for kids with autism and Asperger's. Adults may hide their distaste for the different behind masks of civility — kids don't. Because of that, kids with autism and Asperger's often become targets of brutal bullying, made worse because of their innate naiveté and lack of understanding of social mores.

In the adult world, intolerance may be more subtle, but sometimes even less so. It's no question that autism and Asperger's can be very debilitating - but the fact is that many of us out there live very productive lives. It can be very frustrating to have your efforts in life discounted because you're viewed as being "sick" or having a "disorder."

Then, there is the law of unintended consequences. If there is a connection between autism/Asperger's, or any other condition, and special talents, what would it do to the gene pool if you were to eliminate these conditions altogether? Would we also be eliminating the genetics that predispose the person to their special talents, be it in art, mathematics, engineering, or any other?

If any treatment can make a person's life easier, and minimize the negative symptoms of autism/Asperger's, I'm all for it. The more you can minimize your challenges, the more productive you can be. And, to Ms. Malchiodi's point, if a person with autism or Asperger's produces great art, it should be so recognized — not as great autistic art, but as great art. Period.

Thanks for taking this issue and discussion to new heights! One of the concepts that art therapy, a field that derives in part from psychiatry, is the relationship between the content of art expression and diagnostic categories. I have always felt uncomfortable with this notion because I believe that creativity and imagination exist for other reasons [something I hope to get to in future blog postings]; as a species, humans make art for other reasons than monetary rewards or fame, because most art does not result in either. And I guess I also believe that art and imagination can be one avenue where rules of "normal" do not necessarily apply. Probably a reason why I was drawn to make art, among others!

I also believe in the idea of neurodiversity because to me, it explains why art expression and creativity is so unique to each individual and why there are so many definitions of "art" itself.

If we do not consider art and it's diagnostic function, regardless of whether the artist is exhibiting at a SoHo gallery, is a savant, or a child prodigy, we are forgetting it's primal relationship to the psyche, and its drives, needs, and abilities. Art accesses elements of the psyche, abilities of the human brain when the conscious mind and the ego will not, or cannot. Any art creation is a direct link to those vast, rich depths within. So yes, regardless of who we are, what our abilities or challenges may be, art tells a specific story about our individual psyche at the time the image is made.

In the case of Lorna Selfe's work, clearly her art was diagnostic. It provided information regarding her high level of cognitive fucntioning when her verbal skills could not. Her choices of subject matter and use or lack of color also tell us something about her emotional ability and functioning at the time the image was made. Her art work was and is a fundamental expression of psychic information (and ego function) that proved crucial in how she was received, understood and provided for.

Art is never just art. Art is always the image of the dynamic functionings of our complex psyche, and is no matter when, where or by whom, diagnostic - even if we enjoy looking at it.
Susan Sabini, MA, LPC, ATR-BC
Clinical Art Therapist
The Art Therapy Practice of South Denver
303 981-5034

I do sympathize with the idea of neurodiversity. Not only for my own personal reasons, but for the simply scientific question: If the genes for autism/Asperger's are wholly negative, why do they remain in the gene pool? -----

I think it is important to understand what natural selection actually does and is.

Natural selection does not select for human defined "negatives and positives" it selects for those that successfully reproduce. This is truly a "blind watchmaker."

If people with certain neurological conditions reproduce, the gene gets carried on. Simple as that.

If people with certain neurological conditions do not reproduce, then yes, it will eventually die out genetically.

Although I am wholly supportive of diverse neurological rights, my husband and I have chosen not to reproduce, so as not to subject another person to our living genetic hell.